<?php
/**
 * <https://y.st./>
 * Copyright © 2018 Alex Yst <mailto:copyright@y.st>
 * 
 * This program is free software: you can redistribute it and/or modify
 * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
 * the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or
 * (at your option) any later version.
 * 
 * This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
 * but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
 * MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the
 * GNU General Public License for more details.
 * 
 * You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
 * along with this program. If not, see <https://www.gnu.org./licenses/>.
**/

$xhtml = array(
	'<{title}>' => 'Someone actually cares',
	'takedown' => '2017-11-01',
	'<{body}>' => <<<END
<img src="/img/CC_BY-SA_4.0/y.st./weblog/2018/05/02.jpg" alt="A pantry shelf full of soy milk" class="framed-centred-image" width="649" height="480"/>
<section id="canary">
	<h2>Canary</h2>
	<p>
		I&apos;ve known for a while that my live website hasn&apos;t been updating properly.
		As a result, my canary has been chirping in the code repositories, but not on the main site.
		I haven&apos;t had time to look into this.
		Today though, I received a letter:
	</p>
	<blockquote>
		<p>
			Hi Alex
		</p>
		<p>
			Are you doing OK?
		</p>
		<p>
			I see your canary hasn&apos;t chirped in April.
		</p>
		<p>
			Regards<br/>
			<span class="redacted">[REDACTED]</span>
		</p>
	</blockquote>
	<p>
		It&apos;s uplifting to know someone cares.
		My response:
	</p>
	<blockquote>
		<p>
			Hey <span class="redacted">[REDACTED]</span>,
		</p>
		<p>
			Thank you for checking up on me!
		</p>
		<p>
			There&apos;s some sort of technical issue going on.
			I&apos;m not sure what the problem is.
			I&apos;ve been uploading the new canary file every week, but the web host (GitHub) isn&apos;t updating the website properly.
			I haven&apos;t had time to look into getting a new Web host yet, but it&apos;s on my to do list.
			It&apos;s been low on my priority list because I didn&apos;t think anyone cared.
			I&apos;ll try contacting GitHub support today to see what the deal is.
		</p>
		<p>
			An alternate copy of the canary can be found at my proper Git host: &lt;https://notabug.org/y.st./y.st./src/master/compiled/a/canary.txt&gt;
		</p>
		<p>
			The copy GitHub is supposed to me making public is in its respective repo as well: &lt;https://github.com/AlexYst/AlexYst.github.io/blob/master/a/canary.txt&gt;
		</p>
		<p>
			Thank you,<br/>
			~ Alex Yst
		</p>
	</blockquote>
	<p>
		Before I could follow through and talk to support, I realised the issue.
		As I was writing up my request for help, I remembered that I&apos;d changed my username for something Minetest related.
		I don&apos;t recall the exact reason.
		GitHub&apos;s Web hosting services depend on your repository being named according to a specific pattern that includes your user name.
		When I changed my user name, it changed the name my repo needed to have, without changing the name of said repo.
		I&apos;m surprised my entire site didn&apos;t just disappear!
		The GitHub team must not&apos;ve accounted for the possibility of username changes with hosted sites.
	</p>
	<p>
		I didn&apos;t look into technical issues, as I&apos;d assumed GitHub had some sort of page limit for hosted sites.
		I&apos;d finally hit that limit, so updates were no longer going live.
		They might not actually have such a limit though, and the site is back to live updates now that I&apos;ve fixed the repository name to match my new username.
	</p>
</section>
<section id="drudgery">
	<h2>Drudgery</h2>
	<p>
		I finished up the discussion assignments:
	</p>
	<blockquote>
		<p>
			Yeah, the United States ends up as a testing grounds sometimes.
			However, when the United States holds onto things with e death grip even after they have been proven inferior, it&apos;s pretty stupid.
			You can see too the general attitude of the United States when you look at the fact that we&apos;re one of a very few countries that <strong>*still*</strong> haven&apos;t standardised to the metric system used by most of the rest of the world.
			We try things, hold onto them, and try not to let go no matter how much trouble we cause in doing so.
			It&apos;s a mess.
		</p>
	</blockquote>
	<blockquote>
		<p>
			Not only would we make it easier for ourselves if we gave in and conformed to global standards, we&apos;d make it easier for <strong>*everyone else*</strong> too.
			The mobile standards are a great example of how we&apos;d make it easier for ourselves by doing the right thing.
			The metric system is a great example of how we&apos;d make it easier for others.
			When we try to communicate recipes to others, for example, we&apos;re not using the units everyone else understands.
		</p>
	</blockquote>
	<blockquote>
		<p>
			To be clear, I didn&apos;t say it&apos;s &quot;more than just a phone&quot; or it&apos;s &quot;like a pocket computer&quot;.
			I said that it&apos;s <strong>*not at all*</strong> a telephone and that it <strong>*is*</strong> a pocket computer.
			Like my telephony-using laptop of the past, that thing in your pocket isn&apos;t a telephone just because it can use telephony.
		</p>
		<p>
			It&apos;s sort of a sticking point of mine.
			I&apos;ve never really liked telephones, so at first, I didn&apos;t like mobile devices either, as they&apos;re made out to be telephones.
			It was only once I realised what they really are that I started using one.
			People also wonder why I carry around a mobile device without setting up a telephone line to go with it.
			I mean, what&apos;s the point of a telephone with no telephone service, right?
			And that&apos;s what people ask me.
			Again, it&apos;s because it&apos;s not a telephone; it has functionality beyond just telephony.
			The fact that I don&apos;t find telephony useful doesn&apos;t mean I don&apos;t find the many other functions of the device helpful.
		</p>
	</blockquote>
	<blockquote>
		<p>
			I like your table, though it seems to omit some things.
			Most interestingly, it omits the standards used for 4G and 5G.
			It says a single unified standard is used for each, but doesn&apos;t say what that standard is.
			Most importantly, it omits the expected speeds for 4G and 5G.
			Again, it says a single unified standard is used for each, but that doesn&apos;t allow us to compare the speed of said standard with the speeds of other generations.
			Aside from that table you copied, you didn&apos;t really explain much, either.
		</p>
	</blockquote>
	<blockquote>
		<p>
			Thanks for the great and concise explanation!
			I couldn&apos;t figure out how to properly condense, myself, so blabbed on and on.
			Your post hits the highlights though without the need to write an entire book on the subject.
		</p>
	</blockquote>
	<blockquote>
		<p>
			Human greed is a powerful thing.
			It might just be the most powerful thing on the planet, sadly.
			The environmental damage we do is a great example of this, but it&apos;s not even the only example.
			Copyright law, patent law, and corporate secrets are another great example of this.
		</p>
	</blockquote>
	<blockquote>
		<p>
			For sure, protection of the planet should be a goal for everyone.
			I mean, if we kill the planet, we kill ourselves along with it, right?
			People are far too short-sighted to care though.
			It&apos;s not in their nature, sadly.
		</p>
	</blockquote>
	<blockquote>
		<p>
			Yeah, its good to know there are people trying to protect these mountain ranges.
			It seems at least some of them have very watchful eyes too, able to alert the group when something nasty is going down.
		</p>
	</blockquote>
	<blockquote>
		<p>
			It&apos;s not just that regulators don&apos;t have the resources to enforce the rules.
			It&apos;s also that regulators can be persuaded to look the other way or even outright change the rules to allow noxious activity.
			Regulators are humans, and humans are terrible.
			Like you said though, the loggers are too short-sighted to care about the rules if they can get away with it.
		</p>
	</blockquote>
	<blockquote>
		<p>
			Yeah, for sure.
			We&apos;re losing our remaining old forest, which are the important ones.
			If new forests were just as good, it wouldn&apos;t be so difficult to reverse the damage.
		</p>
		<p>
			Some cities are starting to erect buildings such as towers and apartment complexes with trees growing on their sides, creating vertical forests.
			These obviously don&apos;t help with old growth forest loss, but I wonder how positive of an effect this has for helping the in-city ecosystem.
		</p>
	</blockquote>
	<blockquote>
		<p>
			I&apos;ve never heard of that method of population sampling before.
			It&apos;s very interesting that $a[DNA] can be retrieved from the soil and used to determine which species of life are present in the area.
			Thank you for sharing!
			I&apos;d love to see how the process works in person.
		</p>
	</blockquote>
	<blockquote>
		<p>
			You say there are over 2000 species of trees and shrubs and 2274 species of plants.
			Out of curiosity, are the 2000 species of trees and shrubs included in the 2274 species of plants?
			I&apos;m guessing not, as that&apos;d mean only about 274 species of other plants, making the density of tree/shrub types rather high.
		</p>
		<p>
			It&apos;s interesting that tribes such as these still exist; people who choose to live separated from the rest of the world.
			It&apos;s not a life I&apos;d choose myself, but then again, these tribes aren&apos;t the people killing the planet.
			They might very well have the right idea.
		</p>
	</blockquote>
	<blockquote>
		<p>
			Data collection such as that is an important step in identifying important habitats, so we know what areas need to be protected most.
			I hope the data is well used and that the Eretmochelys imbricata can be saved before it&apos;s too late.
		</p>
	</blockquote>
</section>
END
);
